Thursday, May 13, 2010

Conservatives Have Lost Their Boogeyman

The signature attack line, that Conservatives are counting on in the next election has evaporated. The Conservatives were counting on putting the Liberals on the defensive, the mere mention of coalition would re-capture the 2008 blowback. Personally, I believed that line was tired and wouldn't be nearly as effective, but recent developments in Britain have rendered the fearmongering mute. I suppose we still have the "separatist" line, but with a practical recent example on full display, the Harper boogeyman is effectively gone.

Canadians want the parties to work together, and the Liberals should revise their kneejerk defensive posture, at the mere mention of coalition. Harper has been a complete and utter failure on the co-operation front, and the Liberals can position themselves as the only alternative that can break the combative Parliamentary logjam. Not just an outreach to other opposition parties, but even future overtures to a Harperless Conservative party. Harper is the problem, he doesn't deserve another mandate, this unseemly culture in Ottawa is his doing. With the UK reference in the background, the public will be less fearful of a coalition- in fact they may well welcome it. This belief is particularly true, when one considers the next election will probably occur while the British honeymoon is still in tact, it will look somewhat attractive in the near term.

We can work with the NDP, on certain issues we can work with Bloc and with new leadership, we can work with the Conservatives. Formal or informal, you can dance around, but the main point is the Liberals are perfectly positioned to best bring certain consensus. If the left and right can unite in the UK, then all the silly accusatory language of the Conservatives looks decidedly alarmist and disingenious.

When you consider the idea of a Liberal majority almost lunacy, it is more prudent to embrace the realist scenarios as your own initiative. In that way, when voters are faced with the probabilities, there will be no shocking opportunism or silly denials, it will be a mature debate, with us as advocate. Ignatieff as the conciliator that can finally make Parliament work, a non-career politician that can bring people together once and for all. You position yourself as different, and in so doing you render a harsh indictment of the current government. Coalitions are somewhat sexy, and we have little to fear from the Conservative hysterics. In fact, the reactions highlight themselves as impediment to progress. If you look closely at voter apathy, at the heart of the turnoff is this constant hyper partisanship. The party that appeals beyond the present realities, will ultimately get some traction.

35 comments:

I really like the idea of suggesting that we'd work with a Conservative party that had a new leader. I think that's a great "three second" answer to the coalition question that people will absorb, accept, and move on.

It also does a good job of ripping Harper for being the problem, while actually being reasonable and open.

Good point. Not that I haven't been advocating a united opposition strategy against Harper specifically since the waning days of Martin's government of course. I would add that another aspect to this is that I think a lot of Canadians that normally don't pay attention to politics have noticed that under Harper's "leadership" we have seen the most fractious, most divisive and most nasty political environment yet. Not to mention the only minority that ever dodged a confidence vote and document release by prorogation in our history given the reaction the second prorogation triggered a few months back. Not only that, but that the really ugly venom seems to consistently come from Harper's side (MPs are untrustworthy traitors and that sort of thing).

What the Liberals need to do is sell not only their own set of policies and how they differ from the CPC, but also that it is Harper that has been repeatedly sabotaging anything resembling cooperation whenever it does not get everything his own way. This is a naked showing of contempt for the voters that chose to give him a minority which means they want him to prove himself by showing he can play fair with others, and this is exactly what he has not been doing, instead acting like he was given a majority all along which in turn shows his contempt for the will of the voters.

I agree with Jesse's point about how this approach would separate Harper and his alien variant of practicing Canadian politics from the wider idea of Canadian conservativism too, not only might it help sell to progressives it may also make it easier for those former PCPCers still voting for the CPC but nowadays wondering what Harper truly is to switch this time to Liberal in voting. As I have repeatedly stated for years Harper's brand of conservativism has no resemblance nor connection to traditional Canadian Conservativism and I think that may also be finally percolating through many of the more detatched from politics watching voters over the past couple of years.

Good post Steve V and a very good point. The only question I have in my mind is how well the NDP would go along with this or whether they would undercut it because it works against their clear strategy of defeating Liberals even before Harper's CPC since the Libs are their greater rival for seats. Still though I think it is a way for the Libs to make an effective pitch in an election.

Although I am not as convinced pointing out Ignatief as a non-politician that could bring all together would sell as well, but then I have not been really impressed with him nor ever really liked the idea of him as Lib leader, but of course compared to Harper he is golden (not that this is a high threshold in my books, but as I have said repeatedly the only important goal is getting Harper out of power as soon as possible, not that he should ever have been enabled to even get to power to begin with given his inherent fundamental anti-Canadian beliefs both ideologically and on the process side too).

" I would add that another aspect to this is that I think a lot of Canadians that normally don't pay attention to politics have noticed that under Harper's "leadership" we have seen the most fractious, most divisive and most nasty political environment yet."

I think the best part of this strategy, is that it directly places the dysfunctional Parliament on Harper. This decay has happened on the Conservatives watch, so if people are tired of business as usual partisanship, the Liberal can position themselves as the alternative. The only way to do this effectively, is to champion co-operation with all parties moving forward. I also think this idea helps rebrand the Libs, which we desperately need.

I hope more Liberals take Steve's view and recognize that closing your eyes and wishing for a return of the 90s when there was a divided right and an almost non-existent NDP and having a Liberal majority is pure fantasy. The new reality of Canadian politics is that parties will have to be prepared to reach out to one another. The NDP has been willing to dance anytime there has been a dance partner. They were willing to work with Paul Martin for six months in 2005 until Martin decided to end the arrangement. The NDP was most notably willing to work with the Liberals and form a coalition government in 2008/09 - once again the Liberals scuttled the deal.

I think that parties need to be mature. The Liberals have to get over a sense of entitlement that they ought be able to get support from other parties in exchange for nothing. The NDP obviously has to be reasonable in its demands as well - but anyone looking at the abortive coalition deal the NDP and Liberals negotiated in 2008 will note that the NDP was quite willing to jettison a number of policies that were totally at odds with where the Liberals stood. In the 1985-87 accord in Ontario - most of the accord consisted of the NDP forcing the Ontario Liberals to actually bring in things that were already in their platform!

Quite honestly, I think that Ignatieff should pull back from his ill-advised "I will never form a coalition government" with anyone and instead go back to leaving all options open - he should even half jokingly say this includes letting Harper be his Deputy PM in a Liberal-Conservative coalition government where the Tories are the junior partner!!

Let Harper be stuck playing the role of Mr. Nasty who unilaterally refuses to work with anyone.

I also think that AV would be a great first step towards further electoral reform in Canada and would reduce alot of the friction between the NDP and Liberals since they would be able to preference each other in ridings across the country - like the Liberals and Nationals do in Australia. The beauty of AV is that if there was a referendum on it - I think it would sail through since I cannot think of any valid argument against it other than a few Tories squawking "no fair, the other parties will gang up on us!"

DL said...”I hope more Liberals take Steve's view and recognize that closing your eyes and wishing for a return of the 90s when there was a divided right and an almost non-existent NDP and having a Liberal majority is pure fantasy.”

OK DL, maybe I’m not hanging around the same blogs as you, but I’ve noted a distinct lack of optimism in regards to any prominent Grit bloggers or posters on this matter. Most are hoping that any future election sees Harper with a diminished seat count, so that CPC leadership challenges come out in the open, best case scenario being the Libs + NDP could form a majority. But hey, if you find any Libs that think they will be winning a majority anytime soon, could you pass the names by me? I have some primo beachfront property for sale in Tuktoyaktuk that I’d like to offload on some poor sucke …um I mean astute investors.

DL said...”The NDP was most notably willing to work with the Liberals and form a coalition government in 2008/09 - once again the Liberals scuttled the deal.”

And the Libs should be thankful they did, because “that coalition” would have killed their party for a generation. Of course the NDP were all for it. They’ve been playing vampire politics with the Grits for decades now, hoping their support bleeds off enough so the could take over their position within the Canadian political dynamic.

DL said...”They were willing to work with Paul Martin for six months in 2005 until Martin decided to end the arrangement.

OK in all seriousness, how exactly did Martin end this arrangement? I didn’t know there was any arrangement. The Libs were writing budgets with Conservative input, and getting any rightwingnut-objectionable legislation passed with the help of the NDP. This ‘arrangement’ from what I remember was just Layton screwing over the Libs at a time of weakness and voting non-confidence to take a chance at improving their seat count. That it caused Harper to become PM is irrelevant. It’s all about what’s best for Layton’s political ambitions don’t you know, not what’s best for Canada.

However you did make one very good point:” The NDP obviously has to be reasonable in its demands…”

You can start by ending your constant bashing of the Grits and concentrate on the real enemy.

I'm not going to get into yet another debate about the mythologies of what did and didn't happen in Nov. 2005 - suffice it to say there are two sides to every story.

You accuse the NDP of attacking the Liberals instead of attacking the "real opponent" - but then in the same breathe you describe the NDP's willingness to form a coalition with the Liberals that would have made Michael Ignatieff PM of Canada - as the NDP playing "vampire politics". The reality is that it was the NDP that was taking the huge risk. Throughout the world, parties that become junior partners in coalition arrangements almost always get decimated in the subsequent election (as the Lib Dems in the UK may learn).

This debate reminds me of the endless debates in the US about "bi-partisanship". Its quite obvious that the definition of "bi-partisanship" in the US is Democrats adopting Republican positions - never the reverse. Similarly, the Liberal definition of the opposition cooperating to oust Harper seems to be as follows: the NDP promises never to criticize any Liberal again and promises not ask anyone to vote for then, while Liberals are free to attack the NDP from coast to coast. Its some bizarre world where the Liberals are free to develop strategies to take votes from the NDP but the NDP is not allowed to respond.

Cooperation is a two way street. Why should the NDP "play nice" when you have Ignatieff pontificating about how refuses to work with the NDP after the next election.

Until the Liberals show some willingness to cooperate for the common good - don't expect the NDP to unilaterally disarm.

in the late 19th century Disraeli noted that the future of Conservativism was tory democracy, it's time for the Liberals to embrace liberal democracy, non-corporatist free enterprise locally sustainable nationalism committed to a world governed by the Ethics of Greatest Equal Liberty.

Congratulations, you represent why I have become anti-NDP since Layton came to power and sold out principles for power with Harper back in 2005. That so many Dippers cannot get past their personal issues with the Liberal being more politically successful at their expense is bad enough. That they cannot do so to defeat the worst threat to social justice and progressive values and principles in this nation;s history in the current PM shows that for all the talk about how principles are what counts when push comes to shove partisanship is more important to you.

I have written repeatedly about how I see the NDP as helping Harper gain and hold power, I am not going to repeat myself here at this time, you really want to know why go to Saundrie and read my writings there. What I am is a swing voter that effectively lost two choices in the last decade (one betrayed into oblivion the PCPC, the other sold out its principles for expediency, your party) who has always seen Harper as a fundamentally different leader and political threat than anything we have seen. Five years ago I thought he might be as dangerous as the Separatists, since then watching his government act I have come to the horrifying conclusion that he is actually MORE dangerous to our nation's stability and survival than the Separatists, a concept I never thought I would believe possible prior to his rise to power.

I've said since the waning days of Martin that Liberal Tory same old story is fundamentally wrong where Harper is concerned, and that anyone that truly believes in progressive principles and social justice must place stopping his rise to power, and since that failed now his removal from power as the only important goal/focus. That the NDP needed to lay off the Libs and have as united a front against the CPC as possible to make this happen, then once Harper was gone do what you want in terms of attacking the Libs. This has not happened.

Dippers need to let go of their dislike/distrust/hatred of Liberals, for as bad from an NDP perspective they may be they are nothing in terms of toxicity to NDP principles and ideas as the Harper CPC, pure and simple. Get rid of Harper, then go back to politics as usual, the fact that Layton could not make this choice showed me that he placed expediency before principles, and the fact that so many Dippers defend that choice and continue to enable such underscores my belief in their real commitment to principles first is rhetorical, not actual.

I didn't expect Liberals to be defenders of principles first, I did expect that of the NDP I used to be able to vote for but since Layton have been unable to. As I have said time and again, if Layton was dealing with the PCPC then I would not be objecting to his approach, but anyone with half a functioning brain knows that Harper does not come from anything resembling a Canadian political tradition in either ideology or process understanding, and to not recognize the threat that posed and poses to our nation shows yet again how partisanship blinds even the most intelligent and rational of human beings.

This is so absurd, I don't even know where to begin. The NDP signed a coalition agreement in December 2008 that would have returned the Liberals to power and tossed Harper into a dung heap - and the Liberals reneged. The NDP was begging the Liberals to help destroy the Harper reign over a year ago - and the liberals chickened out and decided to give Harper a lease on life.

History will always record that the NDP extended and olive branch to the Liberals and was willing to form a coalition government and have a love-in with the Liberals and work side-by-side with them to achieve common objectives - and the Liberals said "No! We'd rather give Harper a few more years in power than take power and give to give the NDP a few crumbs". That's always the Liberal attitude - give us a whole loaf or else we want no loaf at all.

"Dippers need to let go of their dislike/distrust/hatred of Liberals, for as bad from an NDP perspective they may be they are nothing in terms of toxicity to NDP principles and ideas as the Harper CPC, pure and simple. Get rid of Harper, then go back to politics as usual, the fact that Layton could not make this choice showed me that he placed expediency before principles, and the fact that so many Dippers defend that choice and continue to enable such underscores my belief in their real commitment to principles first is rhetorical, not actual."

"The UK Labour leaders were ready, in coalition talks, to offer AV without a referendum, because it's not a constitutional change."

Changing the voting system for the House of Commons is NEVER a "constitutional change". The House could vote tomorrow by a simple majority to switch to proportional representation and it would be perfectly legal.

Oh DL, the NDP just want power, their motives aren't pure. As for that particular coalition arrangement, thank christ cooler heads prevailed, because the circumstances were abysmal. You don't come off a crushing election defeat and then get to do an end around and become Prime Minister. That doesn't pass the smell test, the outrage was palpable, it was the wrong time for a new arrangement. You'll note, the thrust of this post, so I'm on board with coalitions, but that was the WORST possible presentation, and it would have set us back a generation. You must have legitimacy, that manifestation had zero.

Anyways, you're a hardcore partisan puppet, you see what you want, but this "kumbaya" stuff coming from the NDP is nothing more than political expediency, always has been. Lust for power. If you doubt the commitment, the hilarity of trying to roadblock May tells everyone with HALF A BRAIN that the resolve is purely self interest. Please, enough of you self righteous frauds.

So what's the issue?? Of course the NDP wants power. We always have and we always will. There is no point competing in electoral politics unless you want to get as many votes and seats as possible. I'm not sure where you ever got this crazy idea that the NDP doesn't believe in competing in elections and put principle ahead of everything to the point of self-destruction. That's never been the case.

That being said, parties can still have things in common (like a Venn diagram). The Tories and the LDs in the UK have fought each other viciously to an even greater extent than the Liberals and NDP ever have in Canada. Yet, the Tories were willing to reach out and give a few crumbs to the LDs in order to establish a stable government. I get the impression that the Liberals in Canada would rather be in opposition for the next hundred years than re-gain power and have to give the NDP even 10% of the power. You need to get over that and be prepared to cooperate for a change.

Re: "Changing the voting system for the House of Commons is NEVER a "constitutional change". The House could vote tomorrow by a simple majority to switch to proportional representation and it would be perfectly legal."

In the opinion of the parties involved, a "constitutional change" like straying from single member constituencies would have required a referendum. Our written constitution would, in my opinion, have something of the same requirement.

Just because the UK doesn't have written constitution doesn't mean they can't have constitutional change.

Sort of like anything that comes out of your smug mug Jim. Really, you make the lamest comments, think you've said something profound because you equate being a windbag with being smart then spazz out when inevitably you are proven to be a lead tongued troll.

If that 2008 coalition agreement was so illegitimate, and so ill-advised, Steve V, then why did every single Liberal member of caucus sign it in the first place?

Can't speak to why they signed, but it was definitely ill-advised; Conservative poll numbers shot up almost overnight to over 40%, the Liberals dropped to 20% and the NDP 10%. The public quickly and unequivocally rejected the idea... maybe it was the perceived influence of the Bloc, or maybe the NDP getting caught plotting it beforehand (making it look like they were doing an end-run around the results of the election).

Who knows? What is clear is that the Canadian public rejected that particular coalition, so if you're going to try it again you'd be well advised to find out what kind of formal coalition they would accept...

All party inclusive Fair Share Cabinet based on Proportional representation should be the norm.

Oh HELL NO. Not if it involves putting fringe parties in there. No thanks...ending up with a 'pizza Parliament' like some of the European governments would be the absolute worst step we could take. We would be doomed to deficits and minority governments forever. Porn stars, yogic flyers, animal rights activists and the like don't have anything constructive to offer us.

I would love, though, to have that 'run-off' voting brought in; any candidate receiving over 50% of the vote wins, otherwise the top two candidates run again for the win. A perfect system in my opinion...

If you look back at what the NDP demanded (and got) in the 2005 budget deal - it was all pretty reasonable stuff. In the fall of 2005 the NDP demanded action to preserve public health care in the wake of the Chaoulli decision in Quebec. martin refused to talk because he WANTED to be defeated in the house stupidly thinking he could regain his majority. Martin's gambit failed. Paul Martin - Canada's WORST PM EVER!

That last comment of yours proves just how disconnected from reality you are! ANY serious progressive of any political stripe that fails to see Harper as Canada's worst PM ever has proven their disconnect from reality. As I said earlier, you and Dippers like you are exactly why I hold the NDP in such contempt these days, you let your partisanship and your side's lust for power dominate good sense, judgment and protection of the principles you and your party once stood for.

You hate the Libs far more than you hate Harper because they are the greater threat to your electoral chances, which is fine if you are a party that places making gains in Parliament before all else. Yet that is not what the NDP claims of itself (and I saw by actions was true prior to the rise of Layton to leadership), no you are a "different kind of party that places principles first", well thanks for showing yet again that this is nothing but complete male bovine excrement.

Martin is the worst PM in Canadian history??? Wow, the partisan blindness dripping off that statement is as bad as anything I have seen from those Blogging Tories uncritically and totally swallowing whatever party central aka Harper tells them. Way to go in showing yet again that the CPC and NDP have more in common at heart than either likes to admit, hatred of the Liberals before all else. Thanks for betraying all those progressive principles you and your party once stood for when they most needed defending and wallowing in your hatred instead, you are exactly the kind of person Harper relies upon to first gain power and now to hold onto it and worse to get to a majority however slim it might be.

And some people wonder why I blame the NDP as a significant component for the rise of Harper to power and maintaining power...well this is why!

Maybe you Liberals should look in a mirror and blame yourselves for the rise of Harper. You stole MILLIONS of dollars in the sponsorship scandal. YOu had a government that was so rotten to the core with thieves that people turned to the official opposition out of revulsion. Thank God the NDP was there to scoop up a chunk of the anti-Liberal vote. If the 2006 election had been a two party race Harper would have won a majority.

(except for your rather cryptic reference to Pierre Poilievre. Is this the Liberal version of the standing joke we maake about Hedy Fry?)

"Creationists, xenophobes, sociopaths and nutbars" also wouldn't have anything constructive to offer if they were members of fringe parties acting as a defacto coalition to extort concessions from a fragile minority government, as in my European analogy (most pertinent example (but by no means the only one: Greece).

""Creationists, xenophobes, sociopaths and nutbars" also wouldn't have anything constructive to offer if they were members of fringe parties acting as a defacto coalition to extort concessions from a fragile minority government, as in my European analogy (most pertinent example (but by no means the only one: Greece)."

Unfortunately for us those Creationists, xenophobes, sociopaths and nutbars make up our government. So are you saying the CPoC is a fringe party only catering to the wants and needs of the lunatic fringe of the right?

Maybe you should stop assuming that everyone that takes issue with the actions of the Layton NDP that is not a Harper cheerleader is a Liberal. I'm not. My issues are that of the swing voter, I just happen to be one that believes it is a civic duty to stay informed about politics under the principles that democracy works best with an informed electorate making informed choices.

So maybe you could learn to stop making assumptions that fit your partisanship...somehow I doubt it given your writings to date that I have seen. If you decide to claim I am lying feel free to find all those posts I have that praise the Lib leader, lib policies, and Lib actions like most Liberal partisans do. You won't find them, you know why? I am not a Liberal partisan. My views are my own, so try dealing with them as such instead of taking the cheap and easy way out you did by branding me a Liberal.

As I said before you are clearly too partisan to be trusted, any progressive that claims Martin was the worst PM in Canadian history with the example of Harper is clearly too invested in their Liberal hatred to see reality for what it is. Exactly the sort of partisan Dipper Harper relies upon to keep him in power. Oh btw, you didn't capture all that much disgruntled Liberal vote going by the actual results, and it is just as possible if you hadn't been there it could have gone to the Greens, because I doubt any votes that went to you from the Libs would have ever gone to the Harper CPC. So nice arguing without actual facts for evidence, classic partisan thinking. Remember the definition of assumption, it would serve you well.